From low level TIB cores to inherently secure bowlines

[Kost_Greg]

I shall start with a new bowline "on the block" until, of course proven otherwise, that belongs to the janus school of thought (see Ampersand), whose basic principle of returning structure's operation goes like this......

1. First construct the bowline collar.
2. Then clone it by capturing the out-going leg.
3. Last secure the tail with some maneuver, e.g. through nipping loop.

https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=4877.0
 
The knot, obviously, is very close to the ampersand design, the best available bowline in my view, at least in its first four construction stages.

From the detail view of a bowline knot, the first two common stages are apparently the conventional collar formation, next is the out going eye leg capture, and last, tail threading under SP.

They just differ in the last two stages, whereon the ampersand secures the tail by threrading it over itself and down through the nipping loop, in between the collar structure legs, while this one, funnels the tug end under itself and back through the collar, retaining the tibness and an unknotted returning line of shaped 8 .

As shown, besides the lack of third rope diameter inside the nipping loop, the amount of friction, is sufficient enough for me to declare it as inherently secure.

It's also quite possible that it follows ampersand's response at heavy loading due to structure similarities.

What's in store, is a TIB tying method, starting from low level, basic TIB objects, with gradual progression to more sophisticated TIB structures.

[Kost_Greg]

Starting out from the basic TIB core of flash bowline, i shall put into operation a rather new method of tying, which is tailored to a midline formation.

1. First image illustrates the scheme, left bight, central bight, S loop from left to right.

2. Feed the right S loop down through the left bight as shown in second image (caution: the loop through the bight and not the bight through the loop as usually).

3. Feed the central bight down through the loop from the previous step and there you have the flash bowline of third image.

4. Thread the eye through the turn as indicated by the white arrow of fourth image.

This maneuver creates a variation of 1054 farmer's loop with an overhand component.

The overhand component is essential because within the process of collapsing the eye by the " fold and pull up through" action, this very overhand is transformed to the nipping loop of the bowline.

[Kost_Greg]

Now folding the eye from the other side of fourth image knot in previous reply, and pulling the overhand continuation line, up through the eye, which now becomes the new bowline collar, the overhand breaks down to a nipping loop and the DHB bowline takes form.

This is another approach of TIB tying manuevering, starting from low level cores and progressing to more synthesized forms employing eye or collar collapsing rather than haltering the collar (passing the eye through the collar).

[Kost_Greg]

There comes the, "in doubt", necessity of having to preform flash bowline, as a precursor core of 1054 farmer's loop variation with the overhand component.

It is already known, that every intervening knot, features its own TIB tying method, leading faster to the finishing knot, but sometimes it is good practice to start from low level parent cores and then progress to their synthesized derivatives.

I have already shown in another thread, a TIB method for 1054, which i have slightly adjusted here, in order to get the overhand component of farmer's loop.

The S loop of third stage, is just replaced with a Z loop, as shown in the attached images.

From there on, see previous reply#2.

[Kost_Greg]

If the knots had been worked in the end of line field, in the exact way shown previously, another decent bowline would had been derived from this TIB process.

The attached photos illustrate the corresponding stages.

I hold the distinct impression that the bowline of fourth image, is rather familiar to Knotsaver or Alan Lee, or at least very close to the instance that was presented here....

https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=7294.0

The photos do not help at all, but if i recall well, the main concept was similar.

Still waiting for a name.

[Dennis Pence]

I had to try out the enhanced bowline in the first post as a bend for two ropes of different sizes.  I have to admit that I had not tried this with any of the Janus Bowlines or the Ampersand Bowline.  When I tried all of these, I actually liked the version posted here (which is labeled as being Janus-type) better than the others when used as a bend.

Here is what it looks like, but there is no need for the TIB tying method when it is used as a bend.

[Kost_Greg]

Hello Dennis thank you for your contribution and feedback.

I really like your work with bowlines tied as bends, i guess there is no bowline you have missed transforming it to its corresponding bend topology.

I would like to add some adjunctive comments about this concept.

1. I hold the impression that the lower sheet bend structure of first image, is more stable and stronger than the upper one.

On this basis, should we form all enhanced bowline bends in cowboy orientation?

2. Eyeknots derived from symmetrical bends do not work as good as their parent bends (see zeppelin bend, loop).

By the same token, asymmetrical bends coming from bowlines, are theoretically inferior compared to the functionality of their parent bowlines (the nipping loop link, is fundamentally weaker than the other which is usually more complex, plus the nipping loop is not loaded from both ends).

Of course, that does not block us from our exploration, and if we could even approach the functionality of symmetrical structures, it would be great to be able to use our beloved bowline knots as rope joints.

3. You are quite right, there is no need for TIB method for the bends, so how about not tucking the complex end back through the collar, in order to remove some bulk and get more compact forms?

No security issue, i guess, omitting this maneuver(second image).

Have a look at the next three derivatives, in cowboy style, as mentioned previously.

[Dennis Pence]

Clifford Ashley disagrees with your claim number 1. " I hold the impression that the lower sheet bend structure of first image, is more stable and stronger than the upper one."  See p. 73 for the results of his test.  Still even he found this seemed to violate general "principles."  See items #66, 67 on p. 16.  He mentions that Cyrus Day found little difference.  In scout work, I always try to tie and illustrate the upper one (#66).  But I do not count a scout as wrong if he (or she now) ties the lower one (#67).  The labeling of this second knot as a Left-Hand Sheet Bend is unfortunate because it seems to inflict a negative context on being left-handed.  Maybe we can call it a Cowboy Sheet Bend. 

I do agree that when switching to a bend, the Cowboy way of forming the collar might be an advantage.  Still, I have not done any testing.  As Ashley's tests show, this might surprise us, and this might greatly depend on the rope we choose to use.  When you use different ropes in the bend, not only does the size matter, but the two ropes can have very different stiffness and slickness of the surface.  Thus, we may need many different bends to try!

I tried to tie all of your examples with different-sized ropes, and they all seemed to work nicely. 

[Kost_Greg]

Thank you for your valuable, corrective intervention, i concede that i had not retained in my memory the results of Ashley's experiment, i have no reason at all to bring them into question.

I guess i have to admit the nipping action efficiency of the right hand version, even with this slight difference according to Cyrus Day, so i reckon you are doing well teaching the conventional right hand configuration.

However, in this specific case of the cowboy variant, it would be discernibly feasible to enhance knot's security with the additional maneuver of tucking the tail back through the collar, just by following the TIB pattern of the parent eyeknot (image 1).

Moreover, the advantage of the TIB forms, is that they can be tied in at least two modes, e.g. with the ends parallel, side by side as they exit from the knot's core (image 2).

I won't take the plunge this time to declare which one is stronger or more robust, but i reckon they are better, in terms of security, compared to the conventional cowboy sheet bend.